Red 2 (2013)

Is this summer of sequels nobody was expecting or asking for?  There was Grown Ups 2 a few week ago and now we have Red 2.  The difference is that I at least enjoyed Red.  I'm struggling trying to remember anything about it though.  I had to look up if Morgan Freeman was in it, and even then I still couldn't remember anything about his character or what he did in the film.

Sadly, Red 2 is even more forgettable than Red.  The way I feel about Red 2 is the way I feel about a lot of family oriented comedies or TV shows.  It's silly and harmless.  I'm actually at a loss as to why it was rated PG-13.  There's barely a drop of blood in it, and I don't recall any objectionable language.  I saw families bringing younger kids with them and nobody seemed to have any issues.  All I heard was laughter at the silly humor.

We pick up with Frank (Bruce Willis) and Sarah (Mary-Louise Parker) as they are shopping at a Costco.  Frank is trying his hardest to have a normal life, but Sarah seems to be a little bored.  Marvin (John Malkovich) tracks them down and warns that people are after them again.  As they were leaving Costco, Marvin's car explodes, but there's no suspense to this as we're only five minutes into the film and know that Malkovich is in the movie more.  It just seemed like pointless misdirection and even in the film nobody is fooled by it.

Also, I had to call B.S. as Frank and Sarah leave Costco empty handed, despite seeing them load up a shopping cart in the previous scene.  Nobody leaves Costco empty handed.  NOBODY!  It's was nothing more than one of many examples of product placement throughout Red 2.  There's also Papa John's and probably the most creative use of Pringles I've ever seen on film.

Anyway, Frank is brought in for questioning in his relation to an operation called "Nightshade", but Frank has no recollection of this.  During the questioning, a group of people led by Neal McDonough, barge in killing everyone, before Frank gets away.  I was still invested at this point as I always seem to enjoy McDonough's performances.  He's become one of those delightfully creepy, scenery-chewing actors in the mold of William Fichtner.  I love it when you can tell an actor enjoys playing a villain.  Unfortunately, he's not given much else to do in the film beyond this point.

The trio hop from place to place trying to figure out what's going on.  Besides McDonough, a top contract killer is on their trail, as well as Victoria (Helen Mirren) who is hired by MI6.  The contract killer, Han (Byung-hun Lee), was previously screwed over by Frank, so he's extra motivated to kill.

Then, they run into a Russian agent that Frank used to have a relationship with (Catherine Zeta-Jones), and track down an information broker called "The Frog" (David Thewlis).  They eventually find out that Nightshade involved smuggling a nuclear bomb into Russia, and was related to a physicist named Dr. Bailey (Anthony Hopkins), who Frank and Marvin used to protect, but believed was killed.  Dr. Bailey is actually alive and has been locked away in an asylum for the last thirty years.  They break him out to find where the bomb has been hidden.  Are you still with me?

Besides the overall silliness, the main problem I had with Red 2 is that the plot is ridiculously convoluted.  There wasn't a real need to have a story this all over the place.  Simple is fine when you have this many characters and settings.  Maybe even trim a few of them to make it easier to follow.  This is compounded by having character allegiances that change on a whim, people with unclear motivation, and all kinds of backstabbing.  We finally learn that the bomb was actually made out of something called red mercury, which is supposed to be some kind of super weapon, but it's not clear why.  They said something about it having minimal fallout, but wouldn't that make it slightly less dangerous or minimize collateral damage?  SPOILER - They let the bomb explode at the end and nobody seems too concerned about it, so what was the big deal?

There's another moment at the end where something happens that makes absolutely no sense, and there was no explanation as to how.  Wanna know why there was no explanation?  Cause it couldn't have happened unless Frank had magical powers.  There's no Oceans Eleven type scene that clarified it after.  Here's another thing that bugged me.  How come bad guys never shoot at the ground?  When you start firing into a room at waist or chest level, you have to know the people inside are going to drop to the ground.  Maybe all the gunmen could alternate shooting high and low.

I think even the film was worried you might not be following along.  They show an establishing shot of The Pentagon and actually bothered to put "The Pentagon" on the screen, as if anyone watching the film wouldn't know that you're looking at The Pentagon or be unfamiliar with the general shape.  I kept expecting them to put up other obvious things like "Outside" or "Costco".

I have to blame the script more than the direction.  These are the guys (Erich and Jon Hoeber) that wrote the masterpiece that was Battleship, after all.  I don't get it, you write a piece of shit like Battleship and they hire you to write more movies?  I guess Kevin Smith was right when he said in Hollywood you fail upwards. I actually like director Dean Parisot, as I think he's done some fun movies and shows, and I think that's what he tried to do here.  Just keep it fun, and the cast seemed like they were having a good time and playing off each other well.  Even Bruce Willis seemed to be enjoying himself more here when compared to his performance in the last Die Hard.  There are a few fun action scenes, so it isn't all bad.  I didn't even realize this was based on a DC Comics series until I saw their logo at the beginning, and once I realized that I forgave a lot of the cartoony action.  I also liked how the scene transitions were done in a drawn, comic book style.

As I've said earlier, the humor of the film is very tame and silly.  There are a lot of repeated jokes and gags that weren't really funny in the first place.  I will admit that I laughed a few times overall, but I cringed at the bad jokes even more.

Red 2 is a bit of a mess and too silly at times, but it's harmless enough.  It tries to get by on a good cast and a few entertaining action scenes, but tonally it's all over the place and just kind of lazy.  You'll forget you saw this movie after a few days.  I didn't hate it, but I can't recommend it as anything other than a rental.

2 (out of 5) Death Stars

Monsters University (2013)

What is it with rehashes of Revenge of the Nerds lately?  Monsters University is the second movie I've seen in the past month (The Internship being the other) that borrows heavily from Nerds.

Mike Wazowski (Billy Crystal) was inspired at a young age to become a scarer.  He studied harder than everyone and eventually got accepted to Monsters University.  Despite knowing the ins and outs of scaring, Mike has a lot of doubters that don't believe he has the innate ability to be a good scarer.  Jake Sullivan (John Goodman), on the other hand, comes from a well known scaring family and has all the physical attributes you'd want to have.  Mike and Jake start out at odds, competing to see who's the better scarer.  Sully thinks Mike just doesn't have what it takes, and Mike thinks Sully is just relying on his family's name and natural ability to get by.

Their competition gets the better of them though, and both are eventually kicked out of the scare program by the Dean (Helen Mirren).  Their only chance back in is to win the Scare Games, a series of contests that pit all the various fraternities and sororities against each other.  Mike and Sully are forced to put their differences aside and join the fraternity full of castoffs in order to compete in the Games.  Nobody thinks their fraternity has even the slightest chance, but Mike thinks he can whip them into shape.  Sounds all too familiar, eh?

Even though it follows a familiar format and contains familiar themes, I still enjoyed Monsters University.  This is one of those times where I wasn't bothered by all the reused tropes and plot elements.  I tend to enjoy underdog stories, even though they tend to be predictable.  It's also a prequel that works.  I liked seeing how Mike and Sully started out and eventually became the friends we know from Monsters, Inc.  It also serves to make them both more sympathetic characters when you see the issues they had to overcome.  Although one of the issues with doing a prequel so long after the fact is that many of the characters we spend time getting to know in Monsters University aren't mentioned or seen in Monsters, Inc.  There are a few common characters like Randy (Steve Buscemi) though.  On the other hand, it really won't matter what order you watch either of these films.  There's nothing really spoiled or ruined by watching them in a particular order.

If they ever do decide to do a third film, I'd like to see them do something far in the future.  Maybe base it around Boo as a college student herself, whose long forgotten her adventure with Kitty and and Mike Wazowski.

The humor is pretty standard and definitely geared towards the family.  Most of the families sitting around me all laughed at various points.  I didn't find it particularly funny myself, but not because it was childish.  Just not quite enough bite for my tastes.  However, there's a great sequence at the end that fans of horror films will really appreciate.  I don't know which of the three writers wrote that section (Robert L. Baird, Daniel Gerson, and director Dan Scanlon), but it was a smart sequence that was best part of the film for me.

As you'd expect with a Pixar film, the animation is top notch.  When you compare this with Monsters, Inc. it really is amazing to see how far it's come.  There are times where things are so realistic looking - particularly with the short film before the main feature - that you may think real sets are used with the characters added in after.  It truly is beautiful, and worth watching just for the animation if that's your thing.

Monsters University is one of the rare examples of a prequel that's on par with original, and I actually enjoyed it a little more than Monsters, Inc.  While it's definitely not Pixar's best work, and dives a little too deep into familiar territory, it's still a fun and engaging film that the whole family can enjoy together.  Easy matinee recommendation for this one.

3.5 (out of 5) Death Stars

Hitchcock (2012) - Movie Review

A movie based on a book about the making of a movie.  If this loops on itself more, it'll create a singularity that will destroy us all.

Hitchcock is a behind-the-scenes look at the making of Psycho, a movie that starred Anne Heche and Vince Vaughn.  I'm kidding, of course.  That remake sure was a misfire, wasn't it?  I actually knew very little about the movie Hitchock going in, but I'm always up for a good biopic, especially when it's about such a fascinating person and iconic film.

We begin as Alfred Hitchcock is looking for an idea for his next film.  He wants to do something a little different, and thinks he's found it when he reads the book Psycho by Robert Bloch.  The studio, however, isn't too thrilled with his choice of project, so Hitchcock decides to take a risk and finance the film himself.  He's believes so strongly in the film, that he even has all copies of the book bought up, so that nobody would have the twists spoiled.  Even back then Hitchcock understood the value of no spoilers.  These days any asshat with a blog can spoil a movie for you.  Wait a second...

It's funny to me that a well respected director like Hitchcock didn't have full confidence from the studio when wanting to do a different project.  When you consider the crap that gets made these days, it blows my mind that he'd have difficulty getting a film made.  It also goes to show you how different the business is now.

Hitchcock is based on the book Alfred Hitchcock and the Making of Psycho by Stephen Rebello. From what I hear, it's a fantastic and extremely well researched book that I'm going to have to pick up after watching the film.  Despite being based off such a well respected book, the movie version of it felt a little thin.  I think the problem director Sacha Gervasi (Anvil: The Story of Anvil), and writer John J. McLaughlin had was that they couldn't decide on what to cut from the film.  There's a lot going on, so you have a mix of the film being a little tonally inconsistent and lacking depth in a few key areas.  For example, you learn about his relationship with his wife Alma (Helen Mirren) and their difficulties.  This was an area I wish the film would have gone a little more in depth into.

There are some funny moments, but you never feel like they were making a comedy, and there isn't enough about his personality to come away thinking it's a character study. Throughout the film you see these exchanges between Hitchcock and Ed Gein, an actual serial killer that the character of Norman Bates was based on.  I wasn't clear what these scenes were meant to represent, so they felt odd and seemed like they could have been removed in favor of focusing more on the making of Psychoand Hitchcock's personality and relationships.

I find it a little ironic that a movie about "The Master of Suspense" contained very little actual suspense.  We all know how this is going to turn out.  It's not like we're getting an alternate universe were he's never able to complete the film, or it's a bomb.  It's still fun to watch it all play out though.

As you'd guess, the strength of the film are the performances. Anytime you get Anthony Hopkins and Helen Mirren as your leads, you know you're going to get a well-acted film.  Mirren is wonderful and you see how Alma was 'the woman behind the man'.  She would have carried the movie by herself were it not for the performance of Anthony Hopkins as Hitchcock.  It seems like kind of an odd choice to get someone so well known to play Hitchcock, but the makeup job is so good, that it actually took me a bit before I realized it was him.  I thought Hopkins was playful and it made me like Hitchcock all the more.  Scarlett Johansson plays Anne Heche...I mean Janet Leigh and I found her to be very pleasant.  Jessica Biel and James D'Arcy have very small roles as Vera Miles and Anthony Perkins.  You'll recognize much of the supporting cast and I was surprised to see people of their caliber play such small roles.  Even The Karate Kid shows up.

Lastly, I wanted to give a small shout out to my favorite theater The Vine (www.vinecinema.com) in Livermore.  They upgraded their screens and projectors just this past week, and boy what an upgrade! The film looked fantastic.  It was bright and clear, with HD quality that rivaled my 3D TV.

Whether you're a fan of Hitchcock, the movie Psycho, or just like a good behind-the-scenes biopic, there's a lot to like about Hitchcock.  I had fun with the film and enjoyed it, but couldn't help thinking there needed to be more.  You have great performances from the cast, but it only scratches the surface.  This isn't something you need to rush out and see, but I do think it's worth seeing.

3.5 (out of 5) Death Stars